Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Page Created

First off, I wanted to appologize to User:Aboutmovies for wiping out his work, but as User:Katr67 had pointed out on the talk page, I was working on it (and have been for the last 5-6 hours). I just wanted to point out, Wikipedia has a grading scale that is clearly within their guidlines (takes the guesswork away from us) on how to grade article, I believe it is best to stick with their scale rather than trying to create our own and trying to find our own articles for examples. Most of the articles have no class rating or importance rating, so those need to be done as time allows. The table on the assessment page will update once a day early in the morning, so don't expect it to change right after you add the right tags to an article. If you want to make sure the tag is working go to that articles class or importance page list and look for the article to be listed there. Theophilus75 22:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than completely wiping out his work, I'd suggest adding back what Aboutmovies has written. Not to pull rank here Theophilus, but there are several of us who have been working very hard on WikiProject Oregon and its articles for many months, so we know of what we speak. I believe adding a personal touch to this page is in keeping with the spirit of the project. Thanks. Katr67 22:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention I am unaware of a standardized "Importance" system as that is based on Importance to the project with the tage. I know there is a standard classification scale, as it was on this page, copy and pasted. The only personalizing done was using the template to insert Oregon articles at the different classifications per the assessment scale template {{Grading scheme}} Aboutmovies 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the article to retain everyone's input, changing the examples back to Oregon ones. Hope that works. Katr67 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unsubsting the tl--I just wanted to make sure I hadn't indvertently changed anything else by mistake. Katr67 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed the template for the assessment scale back to using the template as it was designed (makes it less clutered). As I hope those that read what I wrote realize is that the scale of article assessment for class (Stub, GA, etc) was the Wikipedia guidelines. My commentary was only for assessing the Importance, which can be altered if others disagree with the basic outline I put together. However, as the WP doing the assessment we have the discretion to determine what we regard as Low, Mid, High, Top for the importance scale. The outline I put up is what I have been mulling over in my head for the last few months since I proposed adding Class/Importance to the WPOR template, but anyone can change it if they disagree. Aboutmovies 23:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with Aboutmovies work being in there, I just didn't have any more time to merge his stuff into what I had already been working on. As for the ratings, I don't believe that there is a standard for the importance, rather it is left up to the project (and I like what Aboutmovies came up with for that). There is a standard for the class rating that is standard for assessment everywhere I have seen in wikipedia (thus why they have a linkable template). Now, I am most certainly not opposed to breaking the mold to having the class table customized with Oregon articles...BUT...if we do that we should do that same thing that they have done with the standard table, and link the article to a particular day when it was truly a "start" or "stub" or whatever. If you link to an article as an example of a "stub" and then someone changes it to a "B," it is now a bad example. Likewise, if you link to an article as an "FA" and then someone plays with it later making it a "B," again it is now a bad example; that is why their examples say "as of date x."Theophilus75 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a great idea to link to a specific date. My problem with what you have been writing is that it comes across as if I somehow was ignoring or changing the classification related items, and if you look and what I had written you will see that I did not. The classification (again Stub, Start, etc.) info was via the template used as the template instructs which includes a spot to list articles from the project as examples for each Class grade. The rest looks good, that's just my beef to borrow your words, I just wanted to point that out. Aboutmovies 23:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the way I came across! All I was trying to point out really was the articles and the default template (Grading scheme) and trying to keep consistency as I mentioned above (about the specific date thing). You did a great job and I'm sorry if I seemed to diminish that. I was in a hurry and didn't have much time to finish what I was working on and was trying to get it completely up before I had to quit. Thanks for letting me help! Theophilus75 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Everythings cool, now just 2001 assessments to go! Aboutmovies 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This looks great. Thanks to all who put it together. Thanks to Theophilus75 for setting up all the nuts and bolts, and a big thanks to Aboutmovies for giving Oregon-specific guidelines for determining article importance. It's going to be nice to have some specific guidelines that we can all point to when making the assessments. Oh, and thanks to Katr67 for making everyone get along. --Sprkee 00:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon "A" Article

Is there an Oregon "A" article that anyone knows of? If we don't have one maybe we should put one from another state for now until we do have one. Ideas? Theophilus75 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the "A" criteria. Because Southern Pacific 4449 was recently demoted from "good" status to "B". It seems like if it used to be good then it should be an "A"? Katr67 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks like that article went to GA status without going through a GA review. Theophilus75 00:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I get it now. So what we need is one that's just missed FA status and hopefully had a peer review... Katr67 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Columbia River is rated "A" by the BC WikiProject, though "B" by the Version 0.5 team for geography articles. Not sure it's had any sort of review. Katr67 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go by what WPBC has, I know of a certain editor from that project who didn't quite get the ratings concept as they would rate an article down just because it didn't cover their region in as much detail as they would like despite what the criteria calls for. That sort of arguement is only valid for GA and up, and then there is a formal review process for those articles as you know. Aboutmovies 23:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we should just find a good GA article and get it to A status...either that or get a good B article and get it through GA review and then get it to A status. Maybe in the meantime we can use something like Boy Scouts of America. Theophilus75 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through the "A" articles trying to find one that was sort of related to Oregon or at least in the same region, which is how I found Columbia River, about which rating I understand completely, AM... Boy Scouts is OK I guess, but I was hoping to use something regional (any region, not just ours) in character, as long as it wasn't in California. ;) You're right we should just make one though. Katr67 04:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Kentucky had a few A articles, but I was trying to keep something more in the Northwest...not finding anything I figured the BSA wasn't too bad. Theophilus75 08:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We now have an "A" class list if we wanted to use that...but then again...lists aren't necessarily good examples of how to write an article. - Theophilus75 03:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List

Can the "List" classification be added so when we classify them as List they will be removed from "unassessed"? They should not be rated Stub-FA as they have their own ratings guidelines including a Featured List status. Thank you. Aboutmovies 01:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Unless I am misunderstanding you, I don't think that is necessary as Featured Lists are classified as "FA" for classification purposes. The only exception for a list is that it can not receive a "GA" rating, but it can receive any other rating. For an example see List of WWE Champions. - Theophilus75 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I added the "List" category to the template. --Sprkee 04:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Just trying to understand...how did you add the list to the template? The design is pre-configured by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team and I don't believe the bot that fills submits a report each night is designed to look for a "list" classification. Maybe I'm not understanding things? - Theophilus75 04:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the other projects have a "List" class. See them all here: Category:List-Class_articles. So I just added a "List" item to the WPOR template, like several other projects do. I don't know if these articles will get tagged by the bot as List items or not (we will find out next time it runs), but does it matter really? It will help us categorize things. The way it came about was that Aboutmovies was using a script that apparently has the "List" option in its tagging parameters, so he started using it. My feeling is that if we are going to tag them as Lists, we need to have a place to categorize them as well. Personally, I don't really care one way or the other if we use it or not: if we are going by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team book, true, it's not used, but they do mention List class at the bottom of their page: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Non-standard Grades. I'd say it's up to our project to decide what we want to do here. --Sprkee 04:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Even before using the script I would add List for the class as I've seen it while doing assessment for other projects. The List was already a part of the template system as it would show "List" as the class when I would add it (if it wasn't in the template programming it would have shown as an error). Aboutmovies 04:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • This is all fine, but what I'm trying to say is that Lists still get classified (or can be) as Stub, Start, B, A, and FA. If we ever get a list to FL (as the list of notable OSU people is trying for) then they will classify it as an "FA" not an "FL" or a "List"...see what I'm saying? Wikipedia classifies it as an "FA" (at least at this time). If we are going to have a separate class rating for lists shouldn't we have Stub-List, Start-List, B-List, A-List, FA-List/FL? If we dont, how do we track the status of a list until it is ready to be an FLC (also an A-List)?- Theophilus75 14:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I see what you are saying, but I think we are just using this as a way to easily see lists that are just lists so far--equivalent to stubs. When the articles get expanded, they would move to the regular assessment categories (Start, B, etc.). I agree there could be some confusion around this, so we should describe exactly what we have in mind for lists on the Assessment page so that when we all burn out, our successors can carry on. --Sprkee 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it does need clarified cause if I was looking for something to bring up to FA status (and sometimes lists are easier than articles) I most likely would not start with a Stub article unless I had a personal interest in it. Likewise, if I had to sort through an unclassified list of lists (yes that does sound funny) to try and find a list at at least start, preferably B or A status, I likely would not sort through the list and it would sit there not being worked on until someone else found interest in it. - Theophilus75 14:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I just checked the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Oregon_articles_by_quality logs and items that have been assessed as "List" no longer appear since they are not part of the standard assessments. If you look at the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Oregon articles by quality log, I think what happens is that since they are no longer tagged as "Unassessed" they don't show up in these quality logs. I don't think that's a big deal, but just another data point. There is some ongoing discussion of the List-class here: Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment --Sprkee 17:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon categories completed:

Of the following Category:Oregon sub categories these are complete including all sub cats of these:

Aboutmovies 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Now that we have assessed more than half (about 1500 left out of nearly 4000), I think going by category will be less effective as we will run into articles already assessed in greater numbers. So I've switched to going throug the unassessed Oregon category. I've finished I, U, V, W, X, Y, Z and all numbers (except those articles I created/edited on). Aboutmovies 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the update, I'm not going to commit to anything yet except what I've said above! Go us! (And Aboutmovies especially) Katr67 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done as much of T through Z as I can (I created or heavily contributed to the remaining articles), so it would be great if someone can finish off the 35 or so articles left. I'll move on to other letters tomorrow. Aboutmovies 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, we have less than 60 to go. FYI I cannot do any of these, but I will keep an eye out for any new articles that pop up and take care of those. Aboutmovies 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List Part II

Moved from Aboutmovies talk page: Since you did the excellent Oregon article assessments, I wonder if you could add a row on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Oregon/Assessment page for Lists so people know how to rate them, and when they should be rated out of the list category and into Start/B/etc. Are some lists always going to be lists, or is there some magic criteria to lift them out of it? For example, I added pictures (stealing your idea from the judges page, btw) to the List of United States Representatives from Oregon page, thinking that might help it get rated higher, but it was still tagged as a list. I'm not sure what other info it could have, so is that list always going to be a list? Just wondering your thoughts and thought you could start us standardizing that review criterion. --Sprkee 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As always, Sprkee addressed something I was wondering about too... Katr67 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Sprkee talk page: Per the conversation that's been on the assessment page between you, me, and 75, I believe lists should be classified as lists until they reach FL (featured list status) as they are different in scope than regular articles and do not fall into the regular assessment classifications, that's why there is a seperate listing for lists in featured content seperate from regular articles and no GA class. Personally, I'm not someone that uses lists that much (out of roughly 150 articles I've started only one is a list), and would probably not try to make one into featured status or improve up the food chain, but that's me. I see them as a good Wikipedia tool in the sense of an index and for navigation, but not particularly encyclopedic. But as you pointed out it is more up to WPOR to decide how we want to handle Lists. Maybe we could go with FL (featured list), LA (list A class), LB (list B class), and List (for all other lists)? Your thoughts? Aboutmovies 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I may not have directly said it in the other discussion, but I feel that lists should be rated as stub, start, B, A and FA/L (once they hit featured status they are classed as "FA" not "FL"). Lists (IMHO) are generally easier to get to featured status (for those wanting to "accomplish" something), but if someone is going to search for a list that already has a lot done (B, A, some starts) they are going to be able to find (for example) all list with a "B" rating. My personal opinion (unless/until the 1.0 project comes up with a new design) would be to include the lists in with the articles since that way they will be included on our table on the assessment page and also because if one get's to featured status it will be forced to become an FA anyway. - Theophilus75 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists are not FA, they are FL and have a seperate criteria (see above), such as in Talk:List of Anuran families where it is FL. Aboutmovies 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I guess my confusion came from the fact that in order to get them to show a grade under project banner they are listed as FA (though some projects may have created their own FL class, I haven't seen it). My example above from the first discussion shows this, having it classified FL and FA at the same time on the same page. So I stand corrected on my previous comment. Even if an FL isn't an FA, we should (as I recommended above) create an Stub List, Start List, A List, B List & Featured List class for lists if we are going to break them out. I don't think a FL should be grouped together with a bunch of stub and start lists for classification when it's classification is FL. - Theophilus75 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
That's sort of been my point all along, they need to have a seperate grading scale as the Featured Status criteria is different. Otherwise it would be the same as rating a Portal or Picture using the same scale, and they are just different, thus the seperate list of Featured Content for each of those (along with Topics and Sounds) to go along with seperate classification criteria. But since I don't dable in lists that much I don't know if we want to go to all the trouble of coming up with a seperate grading scale and breakdown for roughly 50 lists i WPOR? If someone wants to go to all that trouble, that's fine. But I cannot support using the same scale to further any confussion about grading Lists. So for me either the Stub List, Start List proposal or just List and FL classes. Aboutmovies 20:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • My opinion is only mine, and mine alone...but I think they should either be grouped in with the articles by class or have their own class breakdown of stub, start, B, A, FL. Question now, I know there is a slightly different criteria for an FL and an FA, but i haven't seen any different criteria for lists when they are stub, start, B or A...I believe it is the same criteria as that used for articles. - Theophilus75 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving from Aboutmovies' talk page:

Per your reply on my page (and we can continue here since Katr67 has joined the conversation), I am also not really that into lists for the same reason you mention, though I have been trying to spruce up those two Congress-related ones that seem to be standard for all states. I don't quite understand the criteria of rating lists at all; how did List of Oregon State University alumni get rated an "A", for example? I think it's great, but I don't get it. I don't really care about grades, I just would like to know how we can improve the articles to their maximum potential. I am a little wary of adding a whole new grading system for lists. I'd like them to move to the standard assessments at some point because since List is not a standard, it won't ever been seen by those people who just look at certain quality-rated articles. (I guess there are people like that...?) Since I think our goal is to get more people seeing, and ultimately, working on our project, I think it's fine to leave them as Lists when they are just going to be lists forever, or when they are stub-quality; but a List that has been expanded and referenced and improved should move over to the regular article grading system. Just my two cents. --Sprkee 19:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Just an FYI, List of Oregon State University alumni got an "A" rating because it met the criteria of being well written, properly referenced and at the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article/list status. - Theophilus75 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All assessments are done

Every article that was tagged for Oregon now has a class and importance level assigned to it. - T-75|talk|contribs 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing up, T-75! Katr67 18:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance breakdown

Nice work getting all the assessments done! Just to revisit the original plan, this was our target importance breakdown:

  • Low=55%
  • Mid=30%
  • High=15%
  • Top=1%

With all articles now assessed, the actual breakdown is:

  • Low=72.59%
  • Mid= 23.02%
  • High=3.44%
  • Top=0.95%

We're right on for the Top importance, but it looks like we may have been a little conservative in our assessments. There are probably more "High" importance articles in those Mid-range articles, and likewise some "Mid" importance in the Low articles. I'm not suggesting that Aboutmovies kill himself with the script again, and there are certainly enough articles to keep us busy at the top end for now, but it might be worthwhile to revisit some of the original assessment criteria. As a starting point, maybe all Governors should be High, all Senators and Congressmen are Mid, all cities with over 10,000 are Mid... and so on. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Something to chew on. Awesome that we got this far this fast! --Sprkee 17:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I generally erred on the low side on the paltry amount of assessements I did. Like Sprkee suggested it might be easiest to go through the articles by category at this point, in other words, find the cats that should have a high incidence of important articles, like Category:Governors of Oregon and reassess them, etc. It would also be good to think about what might be viewed as important to people from outside the state and make sure all those articles are assessed as high as appropriate. In other words, what sorts of things (and which people) do people not from this state associate with Oregon? (Here's an encyclopedia article: http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Oregon that miraculously doesn't seem to be a copy of Wikipeda that shows an example of this.) I also suggest making all the Indian tribes high importance if they aren't already. Katr67 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's more interesting reading: http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=218248 and http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108262.html Katr67 18:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea to skim those articles and tag all the things/events/people mentioned in those "general" encyclopedia articles as being oh-so-Oregon and at least consider tagging them as high importance. OK, maybe not all. We can leave off generic things such as sheep and hogs and rain.--Sprkee 18:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
First thanks to Theophilus75 for the final push last night. As to the importance I think some re-assessment is needed. I just went through the Govs and moved some to high based on their work outside of the gov office (i.e. if they would be mid w/o the gov office then they should be high with it). I think that could happen with quite a few without really adjusting the criteria, though maybe tweaking our goal to a 60/30/10/1 breakdown (since I just sort of threw out some numbers to begin with its OK to change) might be a good idea too. It would still require some re-evaluation, but nothing drastic. Plus as we expand some articles that are stubs we will find some of them to be more important and need to adjust up, for instance several governors are two sentence stubs. So there is too little info to give an accurate importance level. Also, some of the lows will be dropping off as I go back through and AFD some of them as non-notable (I swear every band that has been formed in a garage has an article). But my focus is now content again, so I'll be keeping the script in my pocket. Aboutmovies 18:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self assessment

I thought there was a general rule against assessing articles if you were "involved" with that article. I know there is for GA, but looking through the assessment FAQ/guidelines it does not appear there is one for below the GA class status. However, it appears as a WikiProject we can add this feature for assessments involving WPOR tags at least. One, I wanted to see if anyone else knew if/where an actual prohibition/frowned upon rule exists. And two, if anyone else shared my concern and thought we might want to add this criteria to the main WPOR assessment page. I personally do not assess articles I have made significant contributions to (sort of a COI problem as I see it), except as Stub since you can't go lower than that. Any thoughts, suggestions? Aboutmovies 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of an actual rule, but I think its a reasonable prohibition to not assess one's own articles because of COI. I think its also good to have other editors look at one's articles because they can often find stuff you've missed. I have trouble distinguishing between Start and B-class, however, so I think it's OK if the editor in question adds a comment on the above assessment request stating where s/he thinks the article is so we can take a closer look. I tend to default to "Start" if it's obviously not a stub. I assess most of my own articles, but they're all stubs, as far as I can tell. Or else I just throw the generic project tag on them so they go in the unassessed pile. Katr67 00:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals to add to instructions

1) Add to the lead: Only members of this wikiproject should make determinations as to the importance factor listing under this wikiproject’s banner, as non-members are likely unfamiliar with the goals of this wikiproject. 2) Add to the lead: Editors who work on an article should not determine the class (Stub/Start/B) of that article to avoid a conflict of interest. However, unsubstantive work such as fixing punctuation or adding categories and wikilinks does not bar an editor from determining the class, unless that work determined the difference between classes. If have improved an article and would like a new assessment, list it below under Requests for assessment. Also, since there is no rating lower than Stub, feel free to rate an article you have created as that classification. Downgrading an article to Stub after working on that article can be perceived as a conflict of interest.

These should address some concerns about bias in the process. Please comment below. Aboutmovies 18:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Does anybody know a way to conveniently view, for instance, all the "start" class articles that are "high" importance? (In other words, a cross-tabulation of two categories.) -Pete (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Directly from the wiki? I doubt it. Though that table with article readership counts is sortable; a portion would have what you want. —EncMstr (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] School district assessment

I noticed that many (most?) of the school districts in Oregon are rated as "Mid" importance. Is this by design? I woulda thought they'd all be "Low"--which some are. In any case, shouldn't they all have the same rating? I can't think what would make one school district more equal than others. In any case, if we can agree on the importance level, could one-a y'all with yer newfangled aut-o-mated tools fix 'em so they're the same? A good job for a new admin maybe? ;-) --Esprqii (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mid is surprising. I would think it "low" too, though taken collectively (all schools as a unit) affect most Oregonians, so that ought to be High, maybe even Top. —EncMstr (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I think "Mid" is a good compromise, per the above. Because they're either all "high" or they're all "low", except maybe for Portland. But if you compare, say, Athena Weston School District or Blachly School District with Portland Public Schools (Oregon), I'd say the ratings should differ. The list article might be high, except there's not much to be done to it except take care of all the redlinks. Katr67 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Ditto List of high schools in Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I might have been misunderstood. My use of "collectively" means a single article which covers all schools. I think each school deserve "low", except possibly the very largest, which might get medium-low, since no one school affects a significant number of Oregonians. —EncMstr (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey man, Athena Weston High School TigerScots football rules!!!! Anyway, I don't think enrollment confers greater importance, does it? Does California's greater population confer more notability? Oh, it's too late on a Friday for deep assessment thinking. --Esprqii (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought the proportion of Oregonians affected by the article's topic was the basis for the importance. So, Fictitious High School with 12,000 students affects like 0.2% of the state (more than that counting parents, siblings, and staff), but a school with 50 students affects something like 0.0008%. Maybe I misunderstood the importance criteria? —EncMstr (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Assessment#Entities if you haven't already. I'm fine with either mid or low...in fact, I'm fine with pretty much any evaluation by a regular project contributor. I'm a big fan of WP:BRD in the case of assessment, with possibly a "notify" step inserted in the case of a mass-reassessment like this. But, the stakes are pretty low if we "get it wrong" (whatever that means)...if you see something you perceive as unbalanced, my theory is, fix it! -Pete (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm betting I did the original assessments a year ago, and my thought process would have been like EncMstr on the relative importance. Portland Public Schools being the largest (followed by I think Salem-Keizer, Beaverton, Hillsboro, and Eugene for the top 5) would effect a far larger number of people than say the Seaside School District. Much like the more populous cities are a higher importance ranking. Relatively speaking to other articles, they are low, but I think the top 5 or 10 should be a higher notch on the ladder as effecting more people, both number of students but also the economic impact of all the teachers and administrators and their salaries. Same with the individual schools, which I think almost all were put as Low (though Jesuit, as much as I hate those recruiting bastards, I think I put at Mid due to the national attention it has received). This is why I don't think there can be a blanket Low/Mid for any article, each needs to be weighed on its merits. For instance, all governors should be a base Mid, but not all only Mid just for uniformity. Some have done more than others, and their "ranking" should reflect that, same with individual schools, or districts. Counties are Mid as a base, but the most populous (top 5 I think) are High as they effect far more people than say Harney County (I think Mult Co. has more people in it than all counties east of the Cascades combined or close to it). But those were my thoughts on the original assessment. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think your methodology sounds good, but I just couldn't see it in place. There are a lot more Mid than you mention, including smaller districts like Ashland School District (Oregon), Milton-Freewater Unified School District, Neah-Kah-Nie School District, and St. Helens School District, to take a random assortment. As you note, it was early in our assessment days and I remember that you were assessing hundreds of articles in bulk, so it's understandable that things slipped through. Just another thing to fix one of these days. --Esprqii (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ten largest as of 2008:

  1. Portland 48,906
  2. Salem-Keizer 37,877
  3. Beaverton 35,333
  4. Hillsboro 19,105
  5. Eugene 18,476
  6. North Clackamas 16,182
  7. Bend-LaPine 13,940
  8. Medford 12,854
  9. Tigard-Tualatin 11,909
  10. Gresham-Barlow 11,845

These should be bumped to Mid if not already. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reassessed so that the top 10 (except Bend-LaPine, which doesn't exist yet, hint hint) are Mid and everything else is Low. --Esprqii (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)